The republic being now in the hands of Cæsar, Brutus was appointed Governor of Cisalpine Gaul, where, by the wisdom and humanity of his administration, he made some amends to the inhabitants for the injuries they had suffered during the civil wars. Many of the young nobility repaired to him from Rome. He entertained them courteously, and by this means the number of his friends was rapidly increased; for all they who loved the republic, loved Brutus.

1

During the whole interval which elapsed between the battle of Pharsalia and Cæsar's death, we observe Brutus assiduous in the discharge of his duty, and aspiring to the lawful honours of the state. He composed a panegyric on his uncle and father-in-law, Cato, which Cæsar affected to consider a very poor performance. His literary works were, indeed, numerous: he abridged the Roman history of Fannius, and also that of Antipater, he wrote a work De Officiis, and another De Virtute, which is mentioned by Cicero and Seneca, and Diomede speaks of one De Patientia. But all these are lost. The materials for judging of the learning and eloquence of Brutus, which time has spared, are therefore peculiarly scanty; there now remaining nothing of his, except a few Latin letters published along with those of Cicero, and a small number in the Greek language, which have been given to the world in a separate form. From the testimony, however, of his contemporaries, and of those ages immediately following, (which possessed his works,) we have learned that his genius was not inferior to his virtue; that in learning he surpassed all the young nobility of Rome; that his philosophy was most enlightened, his taste refined and severe. Even Cicero's eloquence did not come up to his notions of oratory: he required something more close and vehement, having formed his conceptions from Demosthenes. The character of his mind, and the tone of his philosophy, had infused a peculiar vigour into his own manner of speaking, which is said, upon one occasion, to have terrified Cæsar, and to have given him the first suspicion of the fierceness of Brutus's temper. Earnestness and gravity were the prevailing features in his discourse; the expression of his desires evinced the most intense energy; and, as the fire of truth flashed perpetually through his periods, he disdained the petty flourishes of an artificial rhetoric. The oratory of Cicero could not but appear too diffuse and showy to so stern a cultivator of eloquence; especially as, while truth alone was his own aim, Cicero's often terminated in persuasion. The mind of Brutus may be compared to a steed in the Olympic contests, which, having to run a race of glory, sees only the goal, and bounds towards it with invincible energy; Cicero's to the same steed, covered with triumphal trappings, pawing the ground with pride, and listening with evident delight to the applauding shouts of the spectators. Cicero frequently indulged his genius in lively digressions and puns that upset the gravity of the senate. He was sometimes merry at the expense of the stoics, and drew a caricature of their wise man, which forced a smile even from Cato himself. Brutus relished nothing of this. His genius was argumentative and sublime; his chief figures of speech were candour and patriotism; and as he waved his hand on the rostrum, the Roman people imagined they saw truth itself enveloped in the folds of the toga. His letters breathe the same spirit. In the midst of great grandeur of thought, there is in them throughout an affectionate commiseration for

the weaknesses and misfortunes of mankind. The style is suitable: brief, strong, perspicuous; without art, and without affectation.

If we carry our examination further, and observe the unfolding of his character in the relations of private life, the disappointment by which the looking upon great men in this point of view is usually attended, will not meet us here. His philosophy was, it is granted, of a rigid cast; but there does not appear to be any necessary connexion between a stern philosophy and unamiable manners. It indeed appears quite evident that Brutus made choice of the stoic dogmas as a corrective of his too gentle disposition: for, as Dr. Middleton observes," he was very often forced, by the tenderness of his nature, to confute the rigour of his principles." Accordingly, he was exceedingly beloved; and it is equally honourable, both to himself and to his connexions, that, during all his misfortunes, he was not deserted by a single friend. This was singular good fortune in the times in which he lived, when it was common for men to sup with one party, and be found next morning at breakfast amongst their enemies. Brutus's friends were, indeed, a remarkable circle; and that could have been no ordinary virtue which enabled him to bind them to himself. They not only preserved their attachment to him, however, during his life, but after he had fallen, when it was injurious to their fortunes to appear to have loved him. It is true, they were so numerous, and possessed of so much weight and ability, that the proper operation of government was hardly compatible with their total exclusion from power. Octavius, therefore, felt himself compelled by his situation to feign a degree of affection for Brutus's friends. Hypocrisy, however, cost him but very little he understood his interest, and "tolerated," as Plutarch beautifully expresses it," the public respect which was paid to Brutus's memory." Presuming upon this toleration, Messala, the friend of Brutus, after he was reconciled to Cæsar, (Augustus,) took occasion to recommend Strato to his favour: "This," said he, with tears, "is the man who did the last kind office for my dear Brutus."-Strato had assisted Brutus in putting an end to his life.

By his choice of friends, a man's character may almost always be known; for it is in every one's power to choose virtuous friends, or to remain without any. Cæsar, as Cicero observes, was not nice in selecting his intimates; he indeed acknowledged that he preferred bad men who would do any thing to promote his designs, to those virtuous persons who possessed untractable consciences; and Plato reproaches Dion with having chosen unprincipled men for his associates. But all allow that Brutus selected his friends with judgment; at all events he possessed the affection of great men, who were faithfully attached to him and his cause. As long as any of these survived, a degree of respect for his memory was kept up; but, as soon as the diadem of the Cæsars glittered over the broken fasces of the republic, it was clearly perceived that his name was destined to be covered with opprobrium. In the reign of Tiberius, Cremutius Cordus was accused, before the senate, of high treason, for having written an eulogium on Brutus and Cassius. In his defence, he sheltered himself behind the example of the historian Livy, and of Messala Corvinus the orator; both of whom, though living under Augustus, had spoken with becoming enthusiasm of their noble deeds. After such a defence, however, Cremutius did not think it safe to live, and therefore forestalled the executioner by a voluntary death.

From

this instance of suicide, and from many others in the early books of Tacitus's Annals, it seems that the contempt of life, evinced in an extraordinary manner by the people of those times, arose entirely from a despair of freedom. Having from the cradle framed their minds for the exercise of liberty, tyrannical restraint was so intolerable to them, that they willingly laid down their lives to escape from it. The example also of Brutus and Cato had much influence in recommending suicide, which, if ever excusable, was excusable in the Romans of those days.

But to proceed: as soon as it was perceived that to speak favourably of Brutus and Cassius was hateful, and to speak abusively, agreeable to the Emperors, all they who hoped for preferment at court, were loud in their clamours against them. As it was not possible to charge them with any specific crimes, calumny was compelled to shroud itself in general expressions: they were called "villains,' "assassins," "parricides," &c., and the echo of these clamours appears still to sound in the ears of mankind. Of course, these opprobrious terms could be applied to Brutus and Cassius only, with reference to their putting of Cæsar to death. This action has not yet been irrecoverably referred to its class, men still disputing about the justice or injustice of it. Before we proceed to say what we think on that head, we will beg leave to remark, that men have an inveterate propensity to judge of every thing by the event. Had Brutus succeeded in restoring the republic, even at the expense of Cæsar's life, there is no question but that they who are now most noisy in their condemnation of him, would have applauded his patriotism to the skies. Do not historians, indeed, constantly praise that Scipio who killed Tiberius Gracchus? Is he ever styled 66 66 murderer," assassin," "parricide,"? &c. No; but Gracchus was ranged on the side of popular rights; and it appears that little sorrow would be felt by the writers of whom we are speaking, if all such men were despatched in the same way. Cæsar aimed at subverting the government of his country, or rather, had subverted it. Brutus's aim was the restoration of that government. He was therefore the enemy of innovation—the champion of establishments. Can his enemies see nothing good in this? Oh, no! the government he laboured to restore was republican, and they find nothing good in any thing but despotism. Well, but what if he had succeeded in re-establishing the republic? What then?-why, in doing so, he might have changed the destinies of the world. Civilization might have ran on in one uninterrupted career from that time to this, and the progress of society have been advanced a thousand years. There is no man living who has not, as it is, received benefit from the death of Cæsar. Had Antony and Lepidus and Octavius fallen with him, Roman liberty might have lasted some centuries longer, until the world had been prepared to catch the flame from the capitol; in which case, we should have appeared to owe more than we now do, to Brutus. But we are unjust: he could not possibly foresee that Hirtius and Pansa would be slain; that Antony and Octavius and Lepidus would unite; that Cicero would mistake the character of Octavius, and overwhelm him with honours; and, unless he could have foreseen all this, he would not have been justified in cutting off Antony, or Lepidus, or Octavius.

But that he was justified in killing Cæsar, we proceed to prove: it is quite clear, from the universal testimony of antiquity, that an opinion prevailed in all the old republics, that any citizen might lawfully kill a

66

tyrant; through this belief, Harmodius and Aristogeiton slew Hipparchus at Athens; Ahala, Sp. Melius, who did but aim at tyranny, at Rome; and, among the Jews, we find Ehud assassinating the Moabitish King, and Jehoiadah taking off Athaliah, with other examples innumerable. At the close of the seventh book of his politics, Aristotle gives a practical illustration of the effect of this opinion in Greece. He observes, that tyrannies were never durable; and then goes on to enumerate such as might have been supposed to militate against his doctrine. "The most lasting tyranny," says he, on record, was that of Orthagoras and his sons at Sicyon. It continued a hundred years"! The second example given, is that of Cypselus and his family at Corinth, which lasted seventyseven years and six months. The third, that of the Peisistratidæ at Athens, continued only thirty-five years. The Greeks, we see, knew how to put their opinions in practice. They were animated," said Montesquieu," with a predominating love of their country, which, overstepping the ordinary rules of crimes and virtues, listened to that alone, and saw neither citizen, nor friend, nor benefactor, nor father; virtue seemed to forget, in order to surpass herself; and the action which might at first be disapproved as sanguinary, was, through her influence, admired as divine" !

This sentiment was embodied at Rome into a law. Upon the expulsion of the Tarquins, the Romans, experiencing the delights of freedom, decreed, that whoever should be found aiming at royalty, might be put to death by any private citizen, without the forms of law; for they rightly judged, that the man who endeavoured at the subversion of all law was not entitled to its protection. All they required of the tyrannicide was, that he should be able to bring proofs that the person he had put to death had had designs against the liberties of his country. Valerius Publicola was the author of this law. These are Plutarch's words :— "He made it lawful, without form of trial, to kill any man that should attempt to set himself up for king; and the person who took away his life, was to stand excused, if he could adduce proof of the intended crime. His reason for such a law, we presume, was this: though it is not possible that he, who undertakes so great an enterprise, should escape all notice; yet it is very probable that, even if suspected, he may accomplish his designs before he can be brought to answer for it in a judicial way; and as the crime, if committed, would prevent his being called to account for it at all, this law empowered any one to punish him before any cognizance was taken." Publicola also made it death to enter upon the magistracy without the people's consent. The consular laws, likewise, published immediately after the overthrow of the Decemvirate, made it capital to create magistrates without reference and appeal to the people." Ne quis ullum magistratum sine provocatione crearet: qui creasset, eum jus fasque esset occidi: neve ea cædes capitális noxa haberetur." Whoever injured any tribune of the people, his head also was devoted to Jupiter; that is, he was condemned to death. Moreover, there was a decree of the senate, passed expressly for the security of Rome, which devoted to the Infernal Gods whoever should pass the Rubicon with an army, a legion, or a cohort; this decree may still be seen engraven on stone, on the road between Rimini and Cesena. Such were the laws of Rome.

Now we shall see how these laws were set at nought and broken by

Cæsar. That he passed the Rubicon with an army, we have no need to prove; and in proving the remainder, we fear we shall only be telling the reader what he knows very well already. However, for the sake of completeness, we must presume upon his patience; the rather as, although the events of which we speak are well known, it is not usual to draw the same consequences from them as we have.

A portion of the public treasure of Rome was laid up in the temple of Saturn, never to be drawn from thence, unless in case of a war with the Gauls. The keys of the temple were in the hands of a tribune. When Cæsar parricidically entered the city with his troops, the first thing which occurred to him was, to rob this temple; and, accordingly, he immediately hastened thither, where he found the tribune at his post, ready to withstand his entry. Upon this he grew enraged, and, advancing towards the tribune, exclaimed-" Give way, Metellus, or I will strike you dead at my feet! And you know, young man," he added, in a milder tone,— "it is much easier for me to do it than to say it." Let the reader observe the full meaning of this speech:-the law, as we have shown, made the persons of the tribunes sacred, and acknowledged no power that could injure them; in averring, therefore, that it was easy for him to put one of these sacred magistrates to death, Cæsar did in effect acknowledge that he had set himself above the laws; that he had placed himself in that position in which they had armed the hands of every citizen against his life.

But this was not the only time in which Cæsar invaded the laws in the persons of the ribunes; for, returning one day through the city, after the sacrifice of the Latian Festivals, the people accompanied him with shouts and acclamations. Upon this, one of his creatures crowned. his statue with laurel. The two tribunes who were present, perceiving the drift of the whole affair, commanded the wretch to be taken into custody, and the crown to be removed from the statue. The tyrant felt so much anger at this affront, that he removed the tribunes from their offices. Upon another occasion, to a tribune who had presumed to sit in his presence, he observed: "Well done, tribune Aquilla, you had better try if you can wrest the government of the commonwealth out of my hands with your tribuneship!" and by way of mockery and contempt, he promised nothing to any one, for several days after, but with this expression: "If Pontius Aquilla consents."

He had, therefore, usurped the supreme power, and only wanted the name of king. To show, indeed, that he had emancipated himself from the obedience due to his country's laws, he bestowed the honours of the consulship, and of all other magistracies, without consulting or convening the people. Upon one occasion, the regular consul dying a few hours before the year expired, he conferred the honour upon one of his friends for the remaining time; upon which occasion, Cicero said: "Let us make haste, and pay our compliments to the consul before his office is expired." And again: "Our consul is a man of so much strictness and rigour, that not a man of us has dined, supped, or slept, during his magistracy.' Plutarch observes, that Cæsar wished to reign over a willing people; but his impatience to be a king, (says Dr. Middleton,) defeated all his projects. And Suetonius, after impartially summing up his good and bad deeds, declares that he was justly slain: "Jure casus existimetur." For he disposed of offices and honours (says he) in contempt